CUARTO PERIODO
A. MATERIAS PRIMAS
2. HILO DE CABUYA
Communicating with a Minor Statutory Rape 1 Indecent Liberties Child Rape 1
Indecent Liberties Rape 1 Statutory Rape 2 (x2) NA
NA Statutory Rape 1 Indecent Liberties Child Rape 2
NA Indecent Liberties NA Rape 1; Indecent Liberties
NA Indecent Liberties Indecent Liberties Statutory Rape 1
Public Indecency Public Indecency NA Rape 1; Public Indecency
Unknown Indecent Liberties NA Child Rape 3
In summary, the outcome data indicated that sexual recidivism was very low. Offenders were far more likely to commit new non-sex offenses, especially misdemeanors and non- violent felonies.
When time at risk and time to first arrest or conviction were considered, offenders presented the most danger to public safety (both in terms of sexual and non-sexual crimes) during their first year at risk. It was also found that offenders posed a greater risk of reoffending as juveniles than as young adults.
The new sex offenses committed by the 24 sexual recidivists were characterized by the use of penetration with child victims. Finally, the recidivism data showed that few of the youth could be considered “chronic” sex offenders and that most continued to reoffend against children at the same level of seriousness as their referral offenses.
Variables Associated With Timing of Reoffense Behavior
One of the questions of this study asks what characteristics are associated with reoffending “quickly,” that is, during the first year at risk in the community. This is an important issue to explore in order to better understand reoffense behavior and its implications for the
treatment and supervision of juvenile sex offenders in the community.
Several variables were found to be significantly related to the timing of reoffending. Youth who reoffended (in terms of arrests of any kind) during the first year at risk were younger at the time of the referral sex offense (chi-square = 12.651; p < .01), were more likely to have school behavior problems (chi-square = 5.701; p < .02), and were more likely to have a history of truancy (chi-square = 5.440; p < .05). These youth were also more likely to report the sex abuse of a sibling (chi-square = 9.848; p < .01) and to be suspected of or reported for drug or alcohol problems (chi-square = 3.915; p < .05). The juveniles who reoffended quickly were less likely to admit being the perpetrator of the referral sex offense (chi-square = 5.207; p < .05).
One particularly interesting finding concerns the location of treatment. During the first year at risk, there were pronounced differences in the rates of reoffending between youth who were released from institutions and those who were involved in community programs. Chi- square analysis demonstrated that youth who had been institutionalized were significantly more likely to be rearrested for an offense of any kind during the first year at risk than those juveniles who were treated in the community (chi-square = 5.228; p < .05). This difference disappeared during subsequent years at risk.
In terms of clinical assessments during treatment, youth who reoffended quickly were significantly less likely to have social skills deficits (chi-square = 6.485; p < .02) and more likely to have deviant sexual arousal (chi-square = 5.345; p < .05). Finally, as expected, those youth who reoffended during the first year at risk were more likely to have had prior convictions of any kind (chi-square = 7.130; p < .01) as well as prior sex offense convictions (chi-square = 7.130; p < .01).
Variables Associated With Reoffense Status
An important objective of this research was to examine the relationship between several classes of predictor variables and recidivism, or reoffense status. In order to meet this objective, chi-square analyses were performed to determine the significance of the statistical associations between these independent variables and reoffense status. Reoffense status was defined in terms of new arrests and new convictions. Three sets of comparisons were made: sex reoffenders (SROs) versus all others; sex reoffenders (SROs) versus non-sex reoffenders (NSROs); and non-reoffenders (NROs) versus all others. All of the chi-square values for these comparisons are presented in Appendix A. For the most part, there were no differences in terms of statistical significance between the comparisons based on new arrests and those based on new convictions. All of the
percentages and chi-square values presented in this section reflect reoffense groups defined by new arrests.
A. Characteristics of Sex Reoffenders
Table 9 presents selected independent variables and their association with sexual
recidivism. Three variables were found to be significantly associated with sexual recidivism. Sexual recidivists were more likely to have a history of truancy behavior, have identified thinking errors, and have at least one prior conviction for a sexual offense.
Associations between several additional variables and sexual recidivism could not be assessed using chi-square analysis, but the data did indicate trends. For example, SROs were more likely than those youth who did not recidivate sexually, to have been sexually abused, to have committed offenses that involved penetration, and to demonstrate deviant sexual arousal. SROs were also more likely to need follow-up treatment or support. Finally, program providers and treatment personnel considered SROs to be more at risk to reoffend sexually at the time of treatment exit
recidivists were also somewhat less likely to have deficits in social skills and were more likely to have received group treatment in combination with other treatment modalities. No relationships were found between sexual recidivism and a number of variables for which such an association might have been predicted. For example, the location of treatment was not related to sexual recidivism. Further, the level of coercion used, the blame for the offense(s), the offender's ability to express empathy for the victim(s) and remorse for the offense(s), were all unrelated to sexual reoffending. Finally, sexual recidivists were not significantly more likely than the other members of the sample to have deficits in sexual knowledge or to be considered “loners.”
B. Differences Between Sex Reoffenders and Non-Sex Reoffenders
The existing literature is not definitive as to how juvenile sex offenders might differ from other delinquent offenders who have not committed sexual crimes. Even though all of the members of the sample have committed at least one sex offense, the follow-up research offers an excellent opportunity to explore this issue by examining the differences between those youth who continued to commit sexual crimes and those who committed only new non-sex crimes.
Table 9
Selected Associations With Sexual Recidivism
(Sex Reoffenders Versus All Other Members of the Sample)
VARIABLE SROs ALL OTHERS CHI-SQUARE
Truancy History 57.1% 28.8% 6.545*
Thinking Errors 55.6% 28.4% 5.059*
Prior Sex Offense Conviction 16.7% 5.2% 4.494*
Victim of Sexual Abuse 78.6% 50.5% NA
Sex Offense Involved Penetration 94.4% 782% NA
Deviant Arousal 92.9% 64.2% NA
Need Follow-Up Treatment 100.0% 82.7% NA
Risk at Treatment End: Can Monitor Self At Risk Dangerous 0.0% 86.7% 13.3% 37.6% 53.2% 9.2% NA
Prior Conviction of Any Kind 62.5% 45.1% 2.564
Social Skills Deficits 50.0% 71.0% 3.081
Group Treatment 72.2% 49.1 % 3.325
Received Treatment in Institution 62.5% 58.4% .148 Threat or Use of Force (Coercion) 45.0% 29.7% 1.871
Blame Victim for Offense 31.3% 23.9% .391
Express Empathy for Victim 35.3% 37.4% .027
Express Remorse for Offense 50.0% 43.3% .282
Sex Knowledge Deficits 57.9% 41.8% 1.662
Loner 50.0% 55.9% .222
Table 10
Selected Associations With Sex and Non-Sex Recidivism (Sex Reoffenders Versus Non-Sex Reoffenders)
VARIABLE SROs NSROS CHI-SQUARE
Truancy History 57.1% 36.2% 2.908
Thinking Errors 55.6% 30.9% 3.535
Prior Sex Offense Conviction 16.7% 7.0% 2.237
Victim of Sexual Abuse 78.6% 59.6% NA
Sex Offense Involved Penetration 94.4% 76.6% NA
Deviant Arousal 92.9% 70.8% NA
Need Follow-Up Treatment 100.0% 86.4% NA
Risk at Treatment End: • Can Monitor Self • At Risk • Dangerous 0.0% 86.7% 13.3% 36.7% 55.0% 8.3% NA Group Treatment 72.2% 48.4% 3.188 Offender Race/Caucasian 95.5% 85.4% NA
Sex Knowledge Deficits 57.9% 38.2% 2.236
Prior Conviction of Any Kind 62.5% 53.0% .705
Social Skills Deficits 50.0% 62.5% .883
Received Treatment in Institution 62.5% 62.0% .002
Threat or Use of Force (Coercion) 45.0% 33.3 % .917
Blame Victim for Offense 31.3% 34.0% .041
Express Empathy for Victim 35.3% 32.8% .037
Express Remorse for Offense 50.0% 39.7% .603
Loner 50.0% 62.5% .883
This study found that while there were significant differences between the sexual recidivists and all others on several variables, these differences diminished when only non-sex
recidivists were used as the comparison group. No significant differences were found between the two groups. However, as Table 10 demonstrates, there were marginal associations for many of the same variables that distinguished sex reoffenders from both non-sex reoffenders and non-reoffenders. For example, SROs were more likely than NSROs to have a truancy history, thinking errors, and prior sex offense convictions. SROs were also somewhat more likely to have been sexually abused, to have referral offenses that involved penetration, and to have deviant arousal patterns.
In terms of treatment, SROs were somewhat more likely than NSROs to need follow-up treatment or support and to be considered at risk to reoffend sexually. Sexual reoffenders were also more likely to have received group treatment in combination with other treatment modalities.
Two additional variables that did not necessarily discriminate SROs from all other members of the sample did discriminate, to some extent, between SROs and NSROs. NSROs were somewhat more likely to be minority youth. They were also less likely to have gaps in sexual knowledge than SROs.
Two variables that differentiated between SROs and all others did not distinguish them from NSROs. SROs were only slightly more likely to have had a prior conviction of any kind than NSROs. Similarly, there was little difference between the two groups in terms of social skills deficits.
As was the case for SROs versus all other members of the sample, when SROs were compared with NSROs, no relationships were found for many of the variables that might have been expected to be related to sexual recidivism. For example, the location of treatment was not related to the type of reoffense behavior. Further, the level of coercion used, the blame for the offense(s), the offender's ability to express empathy for the victim(s) and remorse for the offense(s), were all unrelated to the type of reoffense behavior. Further, sexual recidivists were no more likely than non-sex recidivists to be considered loners.
C. Characteristics of Non-Reoffenders
As Table 11 shows, those youth who were not referred for a new offense of any kind during the follow-up period significantly differed in many ways from both sex and non-sex
recidivists. The non-reoffenders appeared to be the most easily distinguishable group. The NROs were more likely to be older at the time of the original sexual offense. They were less likely to have had difficulties with school, such as behavior problems and truancy. The non-reoffenders were also significantly less likely to have been sexually abused themselves or to have a sibling who was sexually abused. One particularly interesting association concerned social skills deficits. The non-reoffenders were significantly more likely than recidivists to have deficits in social skills.
In general, the NROs were less “deviant” than the recidivists. They were far less likely to blame their victim(s) for the sexual offense(s). The NROs were less likely to have a deviant sexual arousal pattern and to display sociopathic tendencies. Finally, the NROs were significantly less likely to have had a prior conviction of any kind, as well as a prior conviction for a non-violent felony offense.
In addition to the significant associations, there were several variables that approached significance in distinguishing between non-recidivists and recidivists (see Table 12). Non-recidivists were somewhat less likely to have had at least one prior conviction for a sexual offense. Only two of the youth (3 percent) who did not recidivate had a prior sex conviction. Therefore, the sexual offense that determined the non-recidivists' inclusion into the study was almost exclusively the only sexual offense charge for these youth. They
During treatment, the NROs were more likely to have demonstrated some motivation to change. By the end of their treatment experience, the NROs were somewhat less likely than recidivists to need follow-up treatment or support.
No relationships were found between overall recidivism and either the level of coercion used in the commission of the referral sex offense(s) or the severity of the sexual acts. The offender's ability to express empathy for the victim(s) or remorse for the offense(s) were also not related to overall recidivism. Similarly, thinking errors, associations with
friends/peers, and sexual knowledge, were all unrelated to reoffending. Finally, neither the location of the treatment nor the risk to reoffend sexually at the end of treatment were related to overall recidivism.
Table 11
Significant Associations With Overall Recidivism (Non-Reoffenders Versus All Recidivists in the Sample)
VARIABLE NROS RECIDIVISTS CHI-SQUARE
Age of Offender: 20.193
• <13 yrs 16.4% 27.4%
• 14-15 yrs 42.5% 60.5%
• 16+ yrs 41.1% 12.1%
School Behavior Problems 41.1% 66.7% 8.897
Truancy History 19.6% 41.1 % 7.210
Victim of Sexual Abuse 39.1% 63.4% 6.605
Sex Abuse of Sibling 31.9% 46.7% 5.752
Social Skills Deficits 81.8% 59.5% 6.318
Blame Victim for Offense 11.9% 33.3% 6.286
Deviant Arousal 54.5% 75.8% 4.506
Sociopathic Tendencies: 9.686
• Strong 232% 36.4%
• Mixed 50.0% 55.7%
• None 26.8% 7.0%
Prior Conviction of Any Kind 342% 54.8% 7.818
Prior Non-violent Felony Conviction 15.1% 28.2% 4.444
In summary, sexual reoffenders could be distinguished from all other members of the sample on the basis of several characteristics. SROs were significantly more likely to have had a history of truancy behavior, to have demonstrated thinking errors, and to have had at least one prior conviction for a sexual offense. In addition, although the association could not be assessed using chi-square analysis, a far greater proportion of sexual reoffenders had a deviant sexual arousal pattern. Finally, it appeared that treatment personnel were
able to identify those youth least likely to recidivate sexually. None of the youth who were considered capable of monitoring themselves reoffended sexually, although some
reoffended in other ways.
Table 12
Selected Associations With Overall Recidivism (Non-Reoffenders Versus All Recidivists in the Sample)
VARIABLE NROS RECIDIVISTS CHI-SQUARE
Prior Sex Offense Conviction 2.7% 8.9% NA
Prior Misdemeanor Conviction 28.8% 41.1% 3.017
Motivated to Change 71.1% 55.9% 2.664
Need Follow-Up Treatment 77.8% 89.3% 2.946
Threat or Use of Force (Coercion) 25.4% 36.0% 1.816
Sex Offense Involved Penetration 80.0% 80.5% .000
Express Empathy for Victim 43.5% 33.3% 1.276
Express Remorse for Offense 45.8% 42.1% .370
Thinking Errors 25.0% 37.0% 1.686
Loner 60.0% 51.9% .740
Sex Knowledge Deficits 46.5% 43.2% .118
Received Treatment in Institution 53.4% 62.1% 1.427
Risk at Treatment End: 1.413
• Can Monitor Self 38.8% 29.3%
• At Risk 51.0% 61.3%
• Dangerous 102% 9.3%
The differences between sex reoffenders and non-sex reoffenders were not statistically significant on any one variable. However, the data indicate trends such that the two groups may be distinguishable on the basis of many of the same characteristics that discriminate between SROs and all others.
Those youth who were not rearrested or reconvicted at all during the follow-up period did stand out as a distinct group. In general, they were less “damaged” and perhaps more healthy than either the sex reoffenders or the non-sex reoffenders. They were less likely to have had convictions prior to the referral sexual offense, and they desisted after that
experience. They were less likely to have come from families where either they or their siblings had been sexually abused. They were less likely to have school behavior problems or a history of truancy. The non-reoffenders were also less likely to exhibit sociopathic tendencies, especially deviant arousal and victim blame. Finally, the non-reoffenders were generally older youth who were significantly more likely to have
social skills problems and were often considered “loners.” These latter findings suggest that nonreoffenders may be more immune to peer influences towards delinquent behavior.